An armed society is an at-risk society.

The Brady Campaign
CONCEALED WEAPONS, CONCEALED RISK
[And the numbers to back up this claim are where? And please include the number of people killed by their own government in the last 100 years because they were unarmed. My speculation is they came up with this sound bite to counter the famous Heinlein quote about an armed society.--Joe]

I sent the following letter to our local (Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington) newspaper, The Daily News and to the University of Idaho newspaper, The Idaho Argonaut.  Some background:  Our Moscow, ID mayor, Nancy Chaney, decided that people should not be allowed to carry pistols in public spaces, worried, as she put it, that people might "swoop in and create confusion" in the event of serious trouble.  She later found our about Idaho's preemption law, making it illegal for local governments to limit people's rights any further than state law.  She couldn't accept that, and tried to get state legislators to rewrite state law.  Running into a brick wall, Mayor Chaney and her conspirators have decided to table the issue "indefinitely".  So far so good.  They were held back, but they now need to pay a price for their indiscretions, even if it's only in the form of a letter from a concerned citizen:

Dear Editors,

"Thank You" to all the brave individuals in Moscow and around the state who fought to protect a human right (the right to self defense in public spaces).  As for Mayor Chaney and the others; you have some growing to do.  You could not be more wrong about self defense, concealed carry, or about the good and responsible citizens of the State of Idaho.

I submit that any holder of public office should be glad for our rights, comfortable with them, unafraid, and should always strive to protect those rights, confident in the knowledge that it is the proper thing to do.  Further, that anyone who is at all suspicious or fearful of the rights of the individual should stay out of public office.

As for the argument that since the feds place restrictions on carrying in certain places, it should be OK for local governments:  It’s not OK for the feds either.  Creating a patchwork of varying 2^nd Amendment infringements can do nothing other than ensnare innocent Americans and make the criminals laugh at us.  Who’s going to consult their “rights infringements map” before moving from point A to point B (step in this square and you’re perfectly OK, but step in this other square and presto, you’re a felon)?  You call that law enforcement or public safety?  I call it insane.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological.

Try as you might to conceal it, Mayor Chaney, your distrust for the people of Idaho is obvious and on display.  If you can work past that distrust and begin advocating more, rather than less individual freedom, you may find that you have more friends and more goodwill from Idaho citizens than you can imagine.

I just read another Daily News article, commending 44 people for their brave deeds during a shooting in Moscow last May, for things like "exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury."  That's a good thing-- people who try to save others at their own personal risk are an inspiration to all of us.  One tiny little gripe here:  The one regular citizen (non cop, non firefighter, non EMT, etc.) who also exhibited "exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury" received no mention whatsoever, in spite of his having been shot and seriously injured in the process.  Blundering oversight or personal disdain on the part of the reporter or editor?  Could be either.  It certainly shows no respect.

I've been saying this for years, pointed out the TSA is engaged in illegal acts, they know they are illegal, they are stupid, even idiotic, security is a joke, and then I suggested some tests of better security concepts. Now the Harvard School of Public Health says:

Study: Airport Screening Process Pointless

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.

[...]

"Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year," the researchers added. "Most of these illegal items were lighters."

This is like the Brady Bunch crowing at how effective NICS is because millions of people have been denied the sale of a firearm. Never mind that some of those people were guilty of "crimes" like being in possession of a deck of cards having naked white women on them (the "criminal" was black) and that the Brady act has never been shown to have made the public safer (Just One Question).

"We'd like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we'd like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures," Linos said in a telephone interview.

With $5.6 billion spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements -- such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.

"Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?" they asked.

A TSA spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

The British Medical Journal contributed:

There is no solid evidence that the huge amounts of money spent on airport security screening measures since September 11th are effective, argue researchers in the Christmas issue of the BMJ.

[...]

Despite worldwide airport protection costing an estimated $5.6 billion every year, they found no comprehensive studies evaluating the effectiveness of passenger or hand luggage x-ray screening, metal detectors or explosive detection devices. There was also no clear evidence of testing accuracy.

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) defends its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year. But, argue the authors, there is no way of knowing what proportion of these items would have led to serious harm.

This raises several questions, they say, such as what is the sensitivity of the screening question: 'Did you pack all your bags yourself?' and has anyone ever said 'no'? What are the ethical implications of pre-selecting high risk groups? Are new technologies that 'see' through clothes acceptable and what hazards should we screen for?

While there may be other benefits to rigorous airport screening, the absence of publicly available evidence to satisfy even the most basic criteria of a good screening programme concerns us, they write.

Put this another way. If you were selling a product advertised as curing some disease and it, in fact, did no better in scientific tests than a placebo you would be at least fined and probably go to jail. If you sold a product advertised to allow your car to use water as fuel you could be sued when it didn't work. But the U.S. Government can get away with providing nothing more than comfort to those that want to feel more secure while actually decreasing the security of travelers at great expense.

Can you imagine a snake-oil salesman using the defense, "My customers wanted to feel they were doing something even if their disease was incurable. Therefore I did nothing wrong." Prosecutors would break out the victory champagne before the defense drew their next breath. And so it should be with the TSA. Either they are incredibly stupid or they are snake-oil salesmen who should go to jail.

Via Cam we have this video from Hillary. There have been times I have thought a Hillary presidency would be tolerable. That thought has now been purged.

There are only two forces that unite men - fear and interest.

Napoleon Bonaparte
[I was reminded of this when reading Kevin's excellent post Why We Fight.

Bonaparte's insight can also be applied to both sides of the gun issue. The anti-gun people use fear a little more than we do but our leaders use it too. We have a much stronger basis in the "interest" part of the equation which is why I think we are winning now. It gives us more staying power. The fear angle fades after a while when the blood doesn't run in the streets like the anti-gun bigots predicted.--Joe]

Reader Rob reported this to me:

Female monkeys may shout during sex to help their male partners climax, research now reveals.

Without these yells, male Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) almost never ejaculated, scientists found.

Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex. Their exact function, if any, has remained heavily debated.

Counting pelvic thrusts

To investigate the purpose behind these calls, scientists at the German Primate Center in Göttingen focused on Barbary macaques for two years in a nature reserve in Gibraltar.

The researchers found that females yelled during 86 percent of all sexual encounters. When females shouted, males ejaculated 59 percent of the time.

However, when females did not holler, males ejaculated less than 2 percent of the time.

To see if yelling resulted from how vigorous the sex was, the scientists counted the number of pelvic thrusts males gave and timed when they happened.

They found when shouting occurred, thrusting increased. In other words, hollering led to more vigorous sex.

Counting monkey pelvic thrusts is admittedly "quite weird, but it's science," researcher Dana Pfefferle, a behavioral scientist and primatologist at the German Primate Center, told LiveScience. "You get used to it."

Quite promiscuous

Male and female Barbary macaques are promiscuous, often having sex with many partners. This means sperm levels can get quite drained.

The females shout when they are most fertile, so males can make the most use of their sperm.

Pfefferle noted her research suggests these calls might also make females more attractive to other males. She added these shouts might play different roles in other species.

Pfefferle and her colleagues detailed their findings online Dec. 18 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

It sounds as if they haven't done the corresponding research in humans yet. I'd like to volunteer to do that research. Now if only I had a population I could observe without disturbing the experiment.

Uncle gives us the all the info available from the NRA-ILA on H.R. 4900 the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007." I just wish Thomas had the actual bill so I could look to see if they reformed any of the explosives stuff that bug me.

Update: Uncle pointed me at a different source which at least is aware of the bills existence. There is still no text of the bill available but it's a start.

What a jerk.

This comes straight out of my stock earnings and bonus:

The three companies have cut a deal with Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, under which they'll pay up but neither admit nor contest charges that they received advertising money from online-gambling operations.

Microsoft has the biggest bill to pay, with a total of $21 million. Of that, $4.5 million will go the government and $7.5 million to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The software giant also will provide a $9 million online public-service advertising campaign aimed at college-level or younger people, pushing the idea that online-gambling enterprises are illegal.

Is Hanaway one of those that believe stores should be closed on Sunday too? Or does she just need to get a lesson in Constitutional law? Where in the powers enumerated by the U.S. Constitution does it say the Feds have power to enact and enforce restrictions on free trade like this? She must have run out of terrorists, child pornographers, recreational drug users, and gun owners (one of her stated priorities although not so bluntly put) to prosecute in the 20 months she has been in office.

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Milton Friedman
1962
[People that think the government should subsidize ethanol production and mandate what types of cars to build or light bulbs to manufacture should read more of Friedman's work.--Joe]

From the Guy Guys we have this slightly disguised spewing of bigotry. I'll translate it into terms that will make the bigotry more obvious. You'll recognize my contribution when you see it:

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily white Ohio males who love their handguns – and they are a minority of white “Buyckeye” men – the state has passed not only a CCW law (the right to carry hidden handguns) in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to firearms.

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily gun-nig**rs - and they are a minority - the state has passed not only a law that "recognizes" their "rights" in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to gun-nig**rs.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact gun policies that best protect its citizens. In short, they are disenfranchised by gun fanatics.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact policies to keep the gun-nig**rs in their place and protect our women folk. In short the gun-nig**rs are getting so uppity they thing they have just as much right to be on the streets as us white-folk and have managed push us out of positions of city power.

[...]

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need for firearms in Lima, Ohio – for example -- keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from being shot on its city’s streets?

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need to pollute their racial heritage in Lima, Ohio – for example -- keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from defiling themselves its city’s streets?

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun toters who can’t break their firearms addiction.

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun-nig**r lovers who can’t break their perversions.

It’s long past time that the majority of citizens of America are held hostage against their will by a well-financed, profitable, over-heated lobby that cares more about its own pastimes than the lives of our youth and citizens in so many areas of our great nation.

Cleveland is just one city that is handcuffed from doing what is right by its community members.

And as a further service I translate this post for you:

Well, this is not about Second Amendment “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

Well, this is not about gun-nig**r “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some gun-nig**r will lose control and rape one of your children during the night.

If the “brave” men of the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

If the “brave” men of the NAACP are so fearful of being lynched in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

That will leave the rest of us safe and sound.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing their inherent potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

Considering Teddy Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined, one would think that if the National Parks were to be gun free that Roosevelt would share those inclinations. But this quote refutes that hypothesis.

I've chosen the picture and slogan for Boomershoot 2008. This will go on the shirts, mugs, hats, magnets, thongs, etc. that are sold via Cafepress. I'll probably get it online for sale sometime during the holiday. The photo was taken by Peter Biddle and he has other photos from Boomershoot 2007 here.

In the mean time:

The official Boomershoot logo will be on most items as well:

One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores. That's why they're criminals. But it isn't criminals who are killing most of the 20,000 to 22,000 people who die from handguns each year. We are.

Josh Sugarmann
June 1987
The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns
The Washington Monthly
[This is one of those quotes that is almost too good to be true. I obtained it from Wikipedia for whatever that is worth.--Joe]

I ended up getting really busy and not getting this out within a day or so of when Caleb and I did this (November 11^th) but most people probably don't care that much anyway. So, for my satisfaction and some of the Boomershoot volunteers I'm documenting the latest improvements implemented to help make Boomershoot 2008 the best yet.

What I'm doing is spending my money and time on the infrastructure to enable easier and faster manufacture of the explosives and targets. For the same amount of resources I could add capacity to handle a few more shooters but I decided put the effort into delivering more targets to the existing number of participants. At first glance this may be thrilling to the shooters as I'm sure it will be when they first hear about it. But just wait--there is an evil twist to my plan and I won't be telling them the details until the night before.

As you may recall Caleb, Kim, and I did some "well" digging and earth moving this summer and fall. We planted some grass where we destroyed the old and it seems to be coming up very nicely:

After draining all the water out of the pipe we poured some recreational vehicle antifreeze in the pump and covered it so it wouldn't freeze and break this winter:

The 700 watt inverter I had installed shortly after building the Taj died. Because we changed our mixing procedures we didn't need nearly as much power as before so I down graded to a 400 Watt inverter that only uses 90 mA of standby current instead of the nearly 1 A the old one consumed. This will give us an estimated battery life of over 15 hours compared to the approximately eight hours with the old inverter. And that includes running the WiFi continuously.

We also installed paper towel dispensers over both benches:

And just because I like the snow here is the Boomershoot range last Saturday:

My estimate is that we will be able to produce 2000 pounds of explosives in the two days before Boomershoot 2008. Literally, a ton of recreational explosives for your shooting pleasure. I wish Josh Sugarmann, Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke and the rest of the anti-gun bigots could be there to enjoy it with us. I'd be willing to arrange for their own toilet and eating areas if they didn't want to associate with us but they probably don't have enough travel budget for it. Too bad. I'd love to see the sour expressions on their faces as people from all over North America (and maybe a guy currently in England who is waiting for an opening) shooting real sniper rifles (used by real former, current, and future snipers), assault rifles (yes, full auto are welcome), and the dreaded .50 caliber rifles have a real blast.

Okay, so they aren't really trying to legislate the laws of physics but the stupid/sloppy/careless/whatever reporter(s) and editor(s) make it sound like they are:

Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate’s approval last week.

Do you see that? All it takes to increase the fuel economy is to pass a law. It's as if they can't distinguish between a law of physics and a law of man. They would get my "crap for brains" tag just for that alone. But they continue on, apparently thinking they can somehow change the laws of economics in the same bill:

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

“This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow” on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was closely involved in crafting the legislation. “It’s groundbreaking in what it will do.”

If it changes the laws of physics and economics then Pelosi is correct. If not then she is another fascist. My bet is on a fascism outcome. And, people know it will fail and aren't being entirely quiet about it:

“What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Although I'm opposed to our lawmakers doing this personally it's great economic news for our family. The big push and subsidies for ethanol over the last few years has pushed the price of wheat to over $10/bushel in the last few weeks (via Idaho Wheat Commission).

Even this graph doesn't give the "big picture". The price of wheat has been in the $3 to $5 range for over 30 years. That's unadjusted for inflation. A lot of the equipment my family uses on the farm is over 30 years old. The bulldozer I use for making modifications to the Boomershoot site is over 60 years old. I visited the farm last weekend and they were putting new tires on tractor which still had the original rubber on it until a week or so ago--rubber that was over 30 years old. They have been hurting for decades and now they are finally making a profit and are attempting to upgrade their equipment.

You might ask, "Why is the price of wheat, delivered to Portland Oregon doubling and tripling in price (the price for delivery in March of 2008 is over $13/bushel) when all the ethanol is made from corn in the Midwest?" It's because wheat is a substitute grain for corn in some situations. And because a lot of the Northwest farmers are planting more wheat to take advantage of the higher profits to be made the supply of lentils and peas (also grown on our farm) is going down and the prices are going up on those as well.

So when the bozos in congress attempt to challenge the laws of economics the best they can do is obscure the costs of their meddling. The costs of their actions are spread out in strange places via obscure mechanisms but eventually the consumers will pay the price, one way or another.

We have beautiful daughters. Amazingly beautiful.

But then I won't argue if someone were to suggest the potential for bias exists. But that doesn't mean I'm even the least bit in error about my claim.

My claims about their talents, intelligence, goodness, etc. also have potential for bias as well and would also be lacking in any error.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Heinlein quote from Time Enough For Love (page 241).  I'll save you the trouble of reminding me:

Delusions are often functional.  A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.

Lazarus Long
1916-4272

Also of note from this same book and character is this quote:

Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.

This quote is of particular interest because it was the first quote in my collection of quotes (and things) which now totals 8491 items. It was when James was a few months old I decided I liked that quote and did not want to forget it as we reared James and his future siblings. I added it to my autoexec.bat file so that I would see it every time I booted my IBM XT. A week or two later I had some other quotes I wanted to be reminded of. I then wrote a simple program that would select and display a quote at random and put a call to the program in autoexec.bat. I ended up rewriting the program in the early 90's and recompiling it for Win32 after Windows 95 came out but the collection of quotes has just been growing and is one of the sources I used for the QOTD on this blog. I now have the program set up so that every time I open up a command prompt (frequently, and don't give me any crap about this--yes, I work for Microsoft and use a command prompt for a LOT of things including building MS software) the programs runs and selects a quote at random for me.

Back to the girls. Wow. They sure are beautiful.

The regulation that prohibits firearms in National Parks has long been a point of irritation for me. Barb and I really enjoy visiting the National Parks and have contemplated trying to visit all of them. But we aren't supposed to bring a self-defense firearm to places where grizzly bears snack on the tourists? What's up with that?

I received my marching orders from the apex of the triangle of death along with another wheelbarrow full of cash yesterday informing me they have been working on this for the last five years and finally have made some significant progress. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo sent a letter, signed by 46 other senators, to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne requesting the regulation change.

What they didn't mention on the website or in the note on the wheelbarrow was that not only was it an Idaho Senator that played a big role in writing this letter but that Interior Secretary Kempthorne is a former U.S. Senator and more recently governor of Idaho and has a strong pro-gun rights record. He did veto a bill that would have allowed concealed carry on school grounds by teachers and parents but he had a lot of pressure by the media and even national attention that caused him to cave on that one. When I called his office to encourage him to sign it I was told the phone calls, letters, faxes, etc. were running something like 50:1 against the bill.

Furthermore, Kempthorne graduated from the University of Idaho in 1975 and his wife Patricia also graduated from the University of Idaho. Barb and I graduated from there in 1977. Our son James graduated from there, our daughter Xenia is currently attending, and our daughter Kim has applied there. The University of Idaho is walking distance from our home in Moscow. In fact Xenia, since she (procrastinator extraordinaire) still doesn't have a drivers license uses her feet as her primary transportation to and from class from our home.

If it's up to Kempthorne I expect we will, at long last, get rid of this oppressive and dangerous restriction on our ability to defend ourselves in national parks.

If that happens I'll be a lot more enthusiastic about visiting the parks and less grumpy when I'm hiking through the woods without the constant reminder of that empty feeling of no gun on my hip in country with large predators.

What follows are some more pictures of our recent trip to Glacier National Park (and here):

Thank yous go to NRA-ILA, Idaho Senators Crapo and Craig, who both signed the letters and Ashley for the email (and also said she liked my earlier pictures of Glacier).

Shame on you to the senators that didn't sign the letter such as the Senators of Washington State where I currently reside. Please note that Presidential hopefuls Senators Clinton and Obama did not sign the letter. McCain did.

You also have to figure it’s probably frustrating as hell for them to not have a single legislative achievement at the federal level in 14 years. They try to push a bill, after the worst mass shooting in our nation’s history, that makes so many concessions to gun owners that the NRA doesn’t have any problem with it, and they still can’t get it through Congress because the Brady name and cause have become so politically poisonous that even a whiff of their involvement is enough to send Congress running.

Sebastian
December 17, 2007
Can You Smell the Desperation?
[Regarding Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke's blog post.--Joe]

An editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he'd have someone to look up to.

Gene Fowler
1992 Daily Curmudgeon Calendar
[Uncle's example from the New York Times where they rant about the lack of gun control reminded me of this.--Joe]

I find it difficult to model the mind of someone that says, all in the same article, the following things. The best I can come up with is some sort of machine with most of the gears missing teeth. It starts and stops and sort of seems to be working but the end results is totally different from what is expected for the given input.

In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have to ask the question whether anyone outside of the security forces must be allowed to carry a gun at all. Gun control is a controversial issue all over the world. Opponents of gun control argue that it takes away the rights of good people to protect themselves while criminals will always find a way to own or use guns.

[...]

I am aware that there is a body of evidence, especially in the US that shows that gun bans or even gun control does not substantially affect the crime rate.

[...]

Therefore the unpalatable conclusion must be that gun control has failed and has to be replaced by a complete gun ban at least for a period of time preceded by a campaign against gun use and ownership and an amnesty for the handing in of illegal guns.

Gun control has failed therefore we need more gun control? It's typical, even though I don't understand it except as a sort of psychological pathology.

As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license.

Rudy Giuliani

Mitt Romney

John McCain

Fred Thompson

Mike Huckabee

Ron Paul

Via Jeff Knox Candidates on Rights
[There is a fair amount of further information in Knox's post.--Joe]

WHEREAS: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, must be protected by every Member of Congress.

WHEREAS: Sarah Brady and the Gun Control Lobby are already bragging how they are going to work with their allies in Congress to put the right to keep and bear arms on the congressional chopping block.

WHEREAS: Sarah Brady and the rabid gun-grabbers are planning to ban private gun sales, exterminate gun stores, renew the Clinton Gun Ban, enact gun rationing, ban other self-defense guns, expand no-safety zones, make concealed carry permits useless and otherwise infringe on the Gun Rights of Americans.

THEREFORE: Let every U.S. Senator know I’m opposed to such efforts to undermine my right to keep and bear arms and I demand Congress pass “NO MORE GUN CONTROL.”

National Association for Gun Rights
No More Gun Control Petition
[I got a call a few minutes ago asking me to listen to a message from Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. I did listen and it asked me to sign the above petition and donate money. I signed the petition but haven't donated any money. This week I put $1300 into car repairs and it's not a good time of year for finding extra cash anyway.--Joe]

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill
[Remember that when you consider "biting your tongue" rather than offend an anti-freedom bigot who deserves to be offended or worse. If you don't speak up for the things you most strongly believe in then you should not be surprised when you lose the things you most cherish..--Joe]

You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.

Mika Brzezinski
December 11, 2007
Video here: 2007-12-11MSNBCMJMika.wmv (2.17 MB)
In response to Joe Scarborough telling her, "One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference." in regards to Jeanne Assam stopping the murderer at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Via Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters and an email from Ashley Varner @ the NRA-ILA.
[No attempt at refuting the claim, just dismiss it. But of course what else could she do other than change her mind? The facts speak for themselves.--Joe]